By - March 28, 2013


Honestly this issue deals with more than just DOMA at the Supreme Court.  The supreme court has taken up the issue of Prop 8 from California, which defines a marriage as between one man and one woman.

Both Prop 8 and DOMA are being litigated by gay rights advocates and supported by a few unsuspecting allies.

First, what are my feelings regarding the outcome of these cases in front of the supreme court?  I have already found out my abilities to predict individual justices on this court is severely lacking.  I was completely floored by the betrayal of the Constitution by Chief Justice John Roberts with respect to Obamacare.  I will never assume he has originalist beliefs anymore.  Justice Roberts apparently just wants to be liked in the D.C. area more than he cares about being beholden to the original intent of the Constitution.

If I were to guess, and thus I shall guess: I predict SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8, therefore being true to Federalism (10th amendment) while striking down DOMA.  If this can be done while protecting the states that reject gay marriage, then I will be content with this potential ruling, but DOMA was passed, in part, to protect states that don’t recognize gay marriage from being sued by states that do allow gay marriage, (i.e. will a gay couple be able to get the state they are married in to sue a state which they live in, but does not allow gay marriage, in order to have their marriage recognized in that state?)  Upholding Prop 8 would seemingly protect the federalism issue, but what of state vs. state?

Who are the unsuspecting allies I alluded to earlier? Bill O’Reilly!  Yes, the General in the war against secular progressivism.

On the O’Reilly Factor, Bill stated;

Supporters of gay marriage have offered a “compelling argument,” while opponents have done little more than “thump the Bible.”

“That’s where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else,” he told his guest, fellow Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

“That is a compelling argument. And to deny that, you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side and the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

Bill, you sound like a good little secular progressive.

I have never been a big fan of O’Reilly’s, mostly because unless it’s child rape or Christmas (which may change) O’Reilly hasn’t got the testicles to fight for conservative issues.  Maybe this issue is showing his true stripes.

If O’Reilly had been listening to the debate at the Court, he would have found “the other side” is making arguments outside the Bible in that the federal government has been defining marriage forever, in tax laws and beyond.  It is not the states that forbid polygamy, it’s a federal law that forbids that, so therefore arguing the federal government has no business defining marriage would then naturally allow all kinds of marriage.

Not one mention from Scripture was made by the “other side” in front of SCOTUS.

Anyway, what is wrong with using the Bible?  It sets forth rules that govern moral successful societies.  Once a society strays from the moral bedrock which it’s stands on, it falls, just look at Rome.

I guess to O’Reilly, those of us who stick to our guns and our Bibles are hay seed hicks, not worth of his omnipotence.  Well, Bill, you are not worthy enough to lead America against the secular progressives.  You just gave into the “holy grail” of secular progressives, from here all other moral issues can be easily toppled.

Hand over the silver stars on your shoulders, Benedict O’Reilly (Arnold).

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Leave a Reply